The Mytilenean Debate was an interesting read. It offered two perspectives on how to act in the same situation. Allies of the Athenian Empire, who were considered special and received special privileges, rebelled against Athens in the summer of 428. They felt that their alliance with the Athenians was held only by fear, and before the Athenians could take away their rights, they thought to strike first. This caused most of the rest of the island to join in this rebellion except for Methymna. The first to offer their opinion on the matter was Cleon, a powerful leader in Athens, and Diodotus, the son of Eucrates.
When the Athenians heard of this rebellion, they immediately decreed that all men of military age should be put to death, but a day later had second thoughts about this extreme action and held this debate to help reconsider what could be done. In Creon’s perspective, he felt that what the Mytileneans did was unacceptable and punishable by death of all men, saying “They should be punished right now, therefore, as they deserve for their injustice. And do not put all the blame on the oligarchs and absolve the common people, for they alike took up arms against you” (pg. 69). He saw using power, force, and instilling fear in others as the only option to prevent any further rebellion. He was almost offended that the Athenians wanted to reconsider and look at other options instead of killing all of them off. His main point of argument was that anything less than a punishment of death would make them appear as weak, and in turn, more rebellions would occur. He felt people would be walking all over them because they knew there would be no consequences to their actions. He states, “If you inflict the same punishment on those who rebel under compulsion by the enemy, as on those who rebel of their own accord, don’t you think anyone would seize the slightest pretext to rebel, when if they succeed they will win their liberty, but if they fail they will suffer nothing that can’t be mended?” (pg. 69).
On the other hand, Diodotus argues for a more fair approach to this situation. He less concerned with the injustice done to them by the Mytileneans, and instead, more concerned with what will benefit their society the most. He states, “Even if I proved them guilty of terrible injustice, I still would not advise the death penalty for this, unless it were to our advantage. Even if they deserved to be pardoned, I would not have you pardon them if it did not turn out to be good for the city” (pg. 72). We see here that Diodotus is not against any type of punishment, he is just more interested in making sure that the punishment is to their benefit. Diodotus furthers his point by saying, “Those who plan well against their enemies… are more formidable than those who attack with active force and foolishness combined” (pg. 75). He wants to make use of the people and their resources, explaining that moderate penalties and substantial payments from them would be more beneficial than killing them off. He is adamant about keeping a close eye to ensure a rebellion never crosses their minds and if their is a reason to punish, punish as few people as possible who are at fault.
Both perspectives on the situation at hand are arguable, but I believe that Diodotus’s way of handling it is much more intelligent, beneficial, and even slightly cunning compared to Creon’s way. Creon displayed the characteristics of someone who is heated, angry, and willing to take extreme measures to avenge himself and the Athenians. On the other hand, Diodotus displays the characteristics of someone who carefully thinks and processes. He is able to look at several perspectives on the situation and use logical forethought to evaluate the effectiveness of a plan in the long run for the society.
I find it interesting how you determined that Thucycides thought the Athenians were special or privileged. I agree with the fact that Diodotus is less concerned with the injustice done to him and his people but rather what will benefit his people more. I believe that the most important point or the point i agree with the most is that if people are rebelling than that government is clearly not fit to rule those people. Rebellion should never even cross people's minds if they are properly and fairly ruled. I agree that it is evident that Creon's way is based heavily on emotion rather than logic and reason. In my own personal experiences I definitely can say that acting on emotion and not thinking things through is not always beneficial or one's best bet to dealing with a situation.
I also find that perspective interesting as well, that the Athenians had privilege, or were special. What I felt were the overarching themes in both the Mytilenean debate and the negotiation with the Delians and Athenians were hegemony and xenophobia. Where I felt the xenophobia was existent was in the way Athenians dealt with outsiders, the Delians in particular. At one point, the Athenians tell the Delians that they are the most worried about than those on the mainland near Athens. In the Mytilenean debate, where hegemony comes in is when Cleon debates on murdering all of the military aged men who invaded Athens. This is also prevalent when the Athenians try to persuade the Delians into surrendering and giving up their island to Athenian control. In all of those dealings, Athenians fear those who are non-Athenian, so they will do anything to make sure nobody penetrates Athenian borders, even if it means mass murder.
I've read Julius Caesar's Commentaries, and I'm struck by the similarities in literary style between Caesar and Thucydides. In general I find the parallels between Greco-Roman and modern English fascinating, the general sentence structure and inherent tone of works from many other cultures I find more exotic.
Like Caesar, Thucydides employs a very detailed account; noting each relevant landmass, the exact number of ships, including the strategic significance of the manner in which they sailed.
Salaethus goes with 40 ships from Lacedaemon to Mitylene by way of Pyrrha, over land, over torrent, to a circumvalation, which he manages across to reach his destination.
Another similarity I find to Caesar is the manner with which he presents himself to the magistrates of Mitylene. The Roman and Greek style of prose, along with all other facets of stylistic representation was relaxed, simple, and fluid. Salaethus "superintends matters generally" telling the host population that "Attica would certainly be invaded", and the nonchalance with which he perceived the situation, and the malleability to which he ascribed it, is why it didn't take him long at all to win over that people.
Isn’t it amazing how after all these years power is still such a coveted thing? Although, in older days empires were all ruled by kings because democracies were thought not to work, the concept of always wanting more and having the most power is not such an ancient concept. But, as recognized in the first passage by Diodotus, the people were in charge more than the royalty wanted to admit, the kingdom knew that they could not specifically attack the public, because they would attack back and win. And they could not risk execution of all citizens for fear of other citizen rebellion. In the Thucycides excerpts the fact that a nation had power was a very important part of life because they did not want to be considered “weak,” but really nothing has changed, nations still go to war these days just to prove that they can. But, these wars were not always a whim, kings and their advisors had to think about their next move very carefully, as in a game of chess, so as not to be checkmated. That’s all it really was, an enormous game of chess, with the smartest taking advantage of those who could not compete with their wits. Plans must be carefully thought out in order to get the outcome that is wanted and expected, this directly relates to Medea as well. In Medea the first thing that we learn about Jason is that he was on a mission to get the Golden Fleece, so, indicating that he wants more, anything that he does not currently have. After this we see that Jason’s excuse to marrying Creon’s daughter, whether it is actually true or not, was that he did not want his family to be poor and wanted them to prosper. Thus, he is seeking that security, that power that man so often wants and will do anything to have. But, also in this play there is Medea’s want of power, not as a queen or anything of that realm, but power over her husband who betrayed her. She must use all of her cunning and wit to find the best way to make Jason pay, and have her power over him, which as we know came true because she devised her plan well. So, a main theme of Greek writing is the want of power and the conniving that was done to achieve this richness of power. With this in mind, I can see why we are analyzing and discussing these works, for how different is society today. Yes, they do have different ways of expressing their reasons for war and ways in which they execute their actions, but that greed that man has is present to this day, and will most likely never go away. Thus, making it appropriate to look to these works and explore the differences as well as similarities of the different ages.
You definitely make a great point. Power is definitely a huge part of government not only in early Greece but in today’s world, no matter what country we are in. You mentioned how power is not only seen in Thucydides book but also in Medea and how she wants power over her husband due to his betrayal. In the beginning of the Medea, the Nurse speaks of how Medea was very convincing and in a way made Jason marries her. In a way the discussions in Thucydides can also be seen as a way to convince the other party to agree with you. Thucydides showed two different sides regarding the Peloponnesian war and how the people living in the cities should be treated. Both sides gave their opinions in trying to make a better reason why each action should be taken. Of course, in the end this came back to the idea of power because at the end of the day everyone is looking out for their self-interests.
In the Mytilenean debate and the Melian dialogue, I noticed a similar theme of rational in decision making. The reasoning and great points brought up by Diodotus, saved the destruction of an entire city in the Mytilenean debate. Though the second ship couldn't reach Mytilene before the first ship, in order to save those sent by Paches to be killed, as Creon decreed, it did in fact save the city of a greater destruction.
More than anything, Diodotus’ response to Creon stood out to me, particularly in addressing the claims that he was but a mere corrupt, eloquent speaker bought by bribery. To this, Diodotus did not spend much time denying and being defensive, rather, he argued that even if he was bought by bribery, should a bad deed on his behalf be justification for the city to act in an irrational way by not hearing him out? For even a man bought by bribery may have the right answers. His underlying tone was one of rational in what was best for the city as a whole, which included not resorting to quick angry decisions to murder an entire population.
Also as intriguing was the Melian dialogue and the Athenians argument, based solely on rational. The Athenians in the Melian dialogue and Diodotus both dismissed the reliance of hope as irrational. Although in both the debate and the dialogue, the voice of reason as opposed to honor and anger was the ultimate victor, each case could’ve avoided more harm than it did if the original decision was made sensibly in what was best for the societies. For example, if the Melians had not acted to defend their honor initially by engaging in war with the Athenians, many lives could’ve been saved.
Although it has been engrained into us that Ancient Greece founded democracy and the western world modeled their governments after it, after reading these historical passages and contrasting it to our age of irrational international policies, one can only doubt how much we actually modeled after “the first democracy”.
I also found myself focusing on wondering why the Melians so rashly decided that it would be better to wage a way they knew they were going to lose, rather than deciding to surrender peacefully and have many more of their citizens/soldiers remain alive. I thought it unfair that probably only a few Melian government officials were making this decision. Had the question been put to a vote I'm sure the soldiers and townspeople would have gladly agreed to surrender. The majority of the country would've probably been more concerned with the lives of its people rather than its image. This can relate back to the point that Diodotus made, that any big decision like this must be discussed among a group of representatives before any emotional or rash actions are made; this is the only way to make a logical decision that will benefit most in the future.
In both the Mytilenean debate and the Melian dialogue, the Athenians seem to have a sole desire for power. Cleon especially worries about seeming weak to others and believes in overtaking other people for the sake of having more power. His point of view is interesting in that he wishes to be feared by others. He believes that if he does not defeat the Mytileneans, others will revolt against him. The quote that particularly stood out to me was when Cleon said, "...your softness puts you in danger and does not win you the affection of your allies," (pg. 67). This tells a reader that Cleon does not believe that he should be loved by his followers nor should he be compassionate towards them, bringing me back to the point of Cleon wanting to be feared. What is interesting about this passage is that Diototus is still able to portray contrasting views of the situation. He declares, "Even if I proved them guilty of terrible injustice, I still would not advise the death penalty for this, unless that was to our advantage," (pg. 72). This is important because he does not fear what Cleon will do because of this challenge. Diototus realizes that killing the Mytileneans could possibly harm their own people if others decide to revolt on Athens because of the unfair and extreme actions. Diototus presented intelligent points of why we should at least save the people who have done no harm to their city and who are their allies, for if they killed part of a particular group, such as the democrats, then the rest would turn against them. It is interesting to see how today, many people still search for power and use the process of making others fear them for it. Although this is true, I believe that Diototus' way of thinking is a more strategic and better plan for his people. One must think about all the effects, good and bad, of the actions they are about to take. While Cleon was hot-headed, stubborn, and arrogant thinking that everything would go his way by killing the Mytileneans, Diototus was smart enough to think about even the people that would not take place in the battle. He thought about his city and how others would react to the overtaking of Mytileneans. All in all, while an impulsive idea may seem like the best action at the time, one must get past the pride he obtains to see the possible consequences of the action that is about to be made.
I would agree with your argument that Diodotus way of think is more practical and rational than Cleon. I want to point out your idea that the Athenians desire of power. I like how that you touch on the idea of how Cleon doesn’t want them to seem weak, so he would like to put them to death. But I would like to point out how Diodotus says that the reasoning behind his argument is that if they kill everyone, a revolt would start. This revolt could overtake Athens and then they would also would be weak. It wasn’t that Diodotus was only pointing out that Cleon was acting in anger but also that he too wanted to make sure that Athens will never be over powered. So even though right reasoning, Athenians are still trying to make Athens look as the elite power by only killing the guilty and dividing Lesbos. Which still instills the fear that Cleon is trying to put on non-Athenians by killing everyone.
One thing I found really interesting about Thucydides was the lack of moral debate in the speeches. In the first debate we were assigned to read, though the two speakers were debating whether or not to kill all the men on an entire island, neither of them was debating the morality of capital punishment or slavery, or pleading for mercy on the people of the island. Instead, they were debating what was best for themselves. I think it’s interesting how, even though this is obviously not the best way to go about relations with other countries or territories, it has happened throughout history, and is still happening today.
Our country sees itself as a bastion of all that is right with the world: democracy, freedom, and civil rights. Anyone who doesn’t agree with us is denounced with words we have decided are insults, like “socialist.” We also, for some unknown reason, feel that it is our duty to force our ideals on others, as well as interfere in affairs that many would argue are not ours to interfere in. We start wars and conflicts under the guise of morality: “This dictator is oppressing his people!” But what we are usually doing is serving our own interests. Take the conflicts in the Middle East for an example. Many would argue that we are only so invested in them because we stand to lose something—oil—if there is any more conflict there. Someone in my group today brought up a good point about this: there are awful human rights abuses happening every day in Africa, but we haven’t intervened nearly as much there as we have in the Middle East. Why? Most likely because we don’t have a self-serving interest in them like we do in the Middle East.
I am not trying to demonize the US, but I am trying to bring an important point up: Thucydides wrote this history and millions of people have read it, and yet we repeat it over and over, disregarding its lesson: that conflicts that serve the selfish, violent interests of one side are both unproductive and immoral.
I agree with you when you talk about how it's still the same "selfish,violent, self interest" that is similar from back then and now. Nothing has ever really changed with humans in terms of those with "power" and trying to keep "order" for themselves- rather than trying to better the world with morality/humanity. We, as a society only focus on things that will be beneficial to us (like you talk about Middle East vs Africa) and only work towards something and help if it'll do good for us (less likely than not, doesn't work out too well).
As much people call it "Democracy" i honestly believe that is probably the wrong word to describe such governing whether its the past or present. So much time as passed, yet the similarities of the powerful is really striking, and just so easy to understand.
Thucydides gives us an interesting parallel between how wars were fought years ago and how they reflect on our choices to go to war today. In our reading for this week, the Mytilenean debate focuses on how to best conquer Mytilene. The Speech of Cleon spoke in favor of the idea to kill all of the military-aged men and take the women and children as slaves. Cleon also believes that this matter should not be further discussed; that waiting a longer period of time before acting will be detrimental to the Athenians. He is quoted as saying, “After a delay, you see, the victim comes at the wrongdoer with his anger dulled; but the punishment he gives right after an injury is the biggest and most appropriate.” (page 68). Cleon believes that Athens should act fast, before they gain a reputation of looking weak or soft in the face of adversary. Diodotus, on the other hand, says that the matter should be further discussed and that rash decisions will lead to poor outcomes. He is quoted as saying, “...nothing is more contrary to good judgment than these two- haste and anger.” (page 71). Diodotus believes that killing all the men will simply lead to chaos and rioting, and will be detrimental to their overall plan. Ultimately, Athens kills only those who are the most responsible, and prevents things from getting out of hand, as Diodotus had feared. In America, there are opposing sides to any debate, and often different views on if or when we should go to war, with whom, and how to fight the war. These ideas are all heavily contested and controversial in our society, and have been for decades. Different people in high-standing positions have opinions and ideas as to how to best go about ensuring the United States' interests in the rest of the world. Oftentimes, politicians and people in authoritative positions bring forth different ideals that are held by many Americans in order to make a convincing argument that others will agree with and support. Much of the policy that is pushed forward comes from different viewpoints, yet stems from the same notion of America being this greater power. Even if we don't agree, we have many of the same interests at heart. Even though Cleon and Diodotus were arguing for two different approaches to fighting this war, both brought forth ideals held strongly by Athenians and were determined to promote these ideals in the best interest of Athens.
Thucydides was a very interesting read for me. Being an international relations major a lot of what is debated and discussed in the readings directly correlates with theories still used today. The realist theory is shown strongly in the speech of Cleon. Realists believe that states are: anarchic, rational, self-interested, and seek survival through gaining resources. It is clear here that Cleon sees the system as everyman for himself and that if the Mytileneans are not destroyed this problem of rebellion will keep occurring. He sees the chance to use the power Athens has to take over and absorb a new territory thus increasing Athens power. In doing this he is supporting the realist theory by gaining more resources and more land to secure superiority for Athens. As we discussed in class the idea of just or unjust does not come into play when talking about the realist theory. States are simply trying to increase power to ensure security.
Just like any theory they’re flaws and ways to discredit its effectiveness. That is what we see in the second speech, the speech of Diodotus. Diodotus is trying to seek an alternative punishment for the people of Mytileneans. He believes that destroying the Mytileneans state will only cause further confrontation between other allies who might feel threatened by the power of Athens. As I read this debate I made the connection to the security dilemma, which is a flaw in the realist theory. The security dilemma explains that increasing military power to heighten security will eventually lead to increased tensions in the system. This is exactly the point Diodotus is making in his response to the Cleon speech. He is pointing out a flaw in the realist theory, destroying Mytileneans will cause an unstable relationship in the system and eventually other states threatened by Athens will feel the need to rebel in order to protect their own lands.
Thucydides historical accounts really opened up to me how far back these international theories go. As long as there are separate nations an international system will be in place and each state must be wary of their survival. Nations are always trying to increase well-being and security for their people but that does come with a price.
I like how you compared the readings to theories that are still being used today. I am also taking an International Relations class this semester and it is evident how these theories that were written many years ago, still applies today. I also like how you compared the security dilemma as a flaw in the realist theory. It helps to better understand how the theories are being applied to present day situations.
I enjoyed reading the Mytilenean Debate. Cleon and Diodotus both had intriguing speeches and both offered consistent views on the issue of the Mytilenean rebellion. I especially liked Diodotus’ speech because he did not simply deny everything Creon spoke about, he offered different approach to the issue. He said, “Even if I proved them guilty of terrible injustice, I still would not advise the death penalty for this, unless that was to our advantage” (line 47). Killing the men and enslaving the women and children will not solve the problem according to Diodotus, and this argument lead the citizens of the Athenian Empire to make the decision of not killing them. I believe Diodotus’ ideas were more rational and I would have to agree with him, in that killing and enslaving the Mytilenean people is not the way to go. There should be another method of punishment that is less harsh, but still gets the point across as both Diodotus and Cleaon wish. Cleon’s speech was harsher in that he did not seem to accept any other option in terms of punishment for these people. “Give these people the punishment they deserve, and set up a clear example for our other allies, to show that the penalty for rebellion is death” (line 39). Cleon was more direct in his approach; he told them what they deserved, why they deserved it, and that was that. Personally, I felt the anger that Cleon probably felt while I read this. If I was an audience member at the time of his speech, I would be terrified to ever cross paths with Cleon. It seems that all he wants is the Athenian Empire to hold the ultimate power over those people. Power is a common theme among Greek literature; everyone seems to want it. In the Mytilenean debate, the Athenians want to enforce their power over the Mytileneans by punishing them for rebelling. The Athenians also exert their power over the island of Melos in the Melian dialogue. Athens sent ambassadors to negotiate a deal with the Melians in order to end the war going on between them. The Melians refuse to be under complete rule of Athens, and as a result, generals were sent to surround the Melian city and immediately start war. The Athenians believe they are superior to all other Greek city-states, therefore think they should control them all. I would be interested to see what other Greek works of literature are out there to see if, again, power is a major theme.
I agree that power is a major theme throughout the events. Throughout Diodotus’s speech he touched upon how destroying the island of Melos would be getting rid of a source of income for the Athenian empire. I think that this idea of striving to attain personal gain at the expense of others translates into American politics. Although politicians say that the interests of other nations are important, really the main focus of their decisions is how America can benefit the most. I agree with you that it seems that all Creon wants is the Athenian Empire to hold the ultimate power over those people and will do whatever it takes to maintain that power. I could also feel the anger that Creon was feeling throughout his speech. Overall I do agree on the points you hit about how Greek works of literature are centered around the pursuit of power, and I too am interested in reading other Greek literature to see if this theme is consistent.
Reading Thucydides was interesting. I thought it was interesting how those two speeches by Cleon and Diodotus were pretty much saying the total opposite of each other. One wants them to be killed and one wants them to live and be used to their advantage. Cleon was saying that they need to kill those people because ‘your softness puts you in danger and does not win the affection of your allies.’ Also he says how the only reason they are obeying is because you exceed them in strength. If you don’t show your strength then they will not be scared and will rebel. He says that ‘it is easier to keep misfortune away than to preserve great happiness’. He wants to give them this penalty that they deserve now so that an example will be set for their allies and show that the penalty for rebellion is death. Diodotus says something completely different. He talks about how the people should not be killed. He is not saying that he is protecting him or showing them any mercy. He believes that it should be discussed. He speaks about how anyone who believes that discussion is not instructive for action is either stupid or is defending some sort of self-interest. He talks about the profit that the city is receiving from these people and that it wouldn’t make sense to kill these people and give up that profit. He says that the only reason to kill them is if it were an advantage to the city, therefor they should find a good use for the Mytileneans. He also discusses how the people of Lesbos were to pay two silver minas for their lot annually and they had to work the land themselves.
I agree with you that is was interesting that the two view points were almost polar opposites of each other. Which one did you agree with, or relate to more? I personally agree with Diodotus. Destroying the land does send a message, yes. But using the land to better your own people is a lot better in my opinion. They should be trying to do what is best for the good of the people. Cleons viewpoint is something that the U.S has done in the past, for example the Vietnam War and the war in Iraq. Our brute force was not enough in Vietnam, and we lost many lives. This is seen as a big mistake in U.S history. That's why I agree with Diodotus.
Something I found incredibly interesting while reading the Thucydides pieces was that he did, in fact, touch on both sides of each argument discussed and he didn’t lean towards one side or the other’s argument. It was easy to tell that his goal was to let the reader decide for themselves the motives of each side and whether or not their arguments were plausible. I liked that, even though the arguments were ridiculous and each side had their own craziness, they are relevant and I liked being able to decide things for myself rather than have the author pull me in the direction they intend. That is not something you see often, in my opinion. I enjoyed reading these sections of Thucydides because it makes everything seem so matter of fact rather than seeing the romantic side of things. There is no emotional side to anything and everything is stated as is. I like that. A lot. Something else I found interesting, and somewhat disturbing, was the extent to which they debated for things of self-interest. Nothing they discussed had anything to do with the betterment for society but instead, for themselves. I wonder if this sort of argumentation is what started the idea that we should do things for ourselves and for our own betterment rather than for the good of the whole. This idea is clearly still prevalent in society today. Like we discussed in class, the U.S. went to Iraq to punish them for something they did not do but it made us look good so we did it anyway. I wonder if the self-interest discussed in the readings had any influence on the self-influence we see today, in any way.
I like how you brought up that this reading didn't pull you towards one direction that the author intended. I also found this to be true and I liked that as well. As we discussed in class we are use to reading things that pretty much tell us how we should feel about certain issues. I liked how Thucydides did his best to get both viewpoints as non-biased as possible. One thing that I didn't like was that the opinions of Cleon and Diodotus were the only opinions we saw. We did not see anything from the viewpoint of the Mytileneans when it's their fate that is being decided. Cleon and Diodotus were only focused on what would benefit them the most, they had no regard for the people of Mytilene. This, unfortunately, is still an issue in today's world. As you brought up, the U.S went into Iraq to punish them for something they didn't even do. We thought that by doing so, it would make us look stronger but how did it really make us look? We rushed into something before gathering all the facts and we did it for what? Revenge? It is sad to think that after all these years of evolving we are still not far off from the Greek civilizations and their selfish ways of ruling.
The debate between Cleon and Diodotus as portrayed by Thucydides is interesting because of the presentation of both arguments. Both speakers ignore the effects of their decisions on the livelihood of the Mytileneans, and focus on what they believe is best for the Athenians. Cleon’s argument uses language that suggests he is angry with the decision to reconsider his plan. He calls upon the desire to be strong and masculine in men, explaining that “…your softness puts you in danger and does not win you the affection of your allies.” Athenians were accustomed to being associated with strength, and being called soft would have been an effective motivator. Though one might be inclined to disagree with Cleon because of the atrocities he is asking be committed, Cleon makes an excellent point about the nature of law. He states “…a city with inferior laws is better if they are never relaxed than a city with good laws that have no force.” This makes a lot of sense, because laws that exist but are not followed or enforced are useless. I think however that a law without a consistently applied punishment is also mostly useless. Cleon is asking for the destruction of the Mytileneans and makes a strong argument for doing so, but would he act the same in every situation where this type of law is broken? The next point that interested me in his speech was when he said”…for generally it is human nature to look with contempt on those who serve your interests, and to admire those who never give in to you.” This is a powerful insight on the nature of human beings, and one which I believe to be true. We as humans admire perseverance, associating it with strength, endurance, and a strong will. Submission is seen as weakness, associated with passivity and “giving up.” This point circles back to his original appeal to the Athenian citizens’ perception of Athens as strong and powerful. Diodotus calls upon a different aspect of human nature, describing the effects of decisions made in haste and in anger. He says, “Of these, one is usually thoughtless, while the other is ill-informed and narrow-minded.” He believes deciding so quickly to massacre the Mytileneans would be to Athens’ detriment, for even the death penalty is not enough to stop people from committing crimes. He also explains that the source of Athens’ strength is its revenue received from its allies. If Athens were to enact a policy of destroying any ally who rose up against them, soon there would be no revenue, for a destroyed city is unable to generate it. He proposes that they punish as few as possible and watch the rest very closely to prevent future rebellion. Diodotus believes Cleon’s view is blind to its consequences for the future of Athens. I think Diodotus was right, and that the massacre of the Mytileneans would have sent the wrong message to other allies of Athens.
Thucydides’ descriptions of the Mytilenean Debate and the Melia Dialogue demonstrate the might as well as shrewd reasoning of Athens. However, while the Athenian Empire demonstrates itself to be skilled in debate and reason, it displays inconsistency in the handling of these two situations which highlights the differences that result when decisions are made by citizens rather than military leaders. The Mytileneans were already under the control of Athens, and were in fact one of their more favored colonies when they decided to revolt against them. When their rebellion failed, their fate was discussed in an Athenian assembly. While Cleon, a skilled and influential speaker, advocated a harsh punishment of the traitorous colony, killing all their men of military age and enslaving all other Mytileneans; Diodotus was able to convince the Assembly otherwise. He claimed killing all the Mytilenean men would not help Athens interests in future rebellions or interactions with their allies, as all citizens would choose to join a revolt since they’d be put to death regardless if they had or not. As a result, it was voted that only those directly responsible for planning the rebellion would be put to death and stricter regulations would be imposed on the island. The Melians, however, were treated much more harshly, and perhaps with less reason to. As an island that had been independent for 700 years and done nothing to anger the Athenians in the past, it is natural they would fight to preserve their freedom in the face of Athens decision to attack them simply to display their power. In the case of the Melians, there was no assembly to discuss the fate of the island, and when Melia refused to surrender, the Athens generals eventually decided to kill all of their men and enslave the rest. These two situations display the differing outcomes that can occur when a nation bases its decisions on power alone, rather than what the most beneficial action would be, and when decision making is placed in the power of military leaders, rather than allowing citizens to play a role.
I like that you brought up how the Melians were treated more unfairly. The fact that the Melians had done nothing to deserve the Athenians decision to come to their island and force them to surrender or fight for their freedom. It perfectly depicts outcome of decisions being independently made by a military leaders. Since a military’s job is to fight, asking them to make decisions for the wellbeing of a country seems contradictory and unfair. They would be conflicting interests if on one hand they thought they should spare the people of the country and on the other hand were under pressure to show their superiority by overtaking the country.
I found reading the chosen excerpts from Thucydides to be very interesting. I especially enjoyed reading the two sides of the Mytilenean debate. It was definitely a fun new twist to read about the same event in the past and hear different perspectives on it. Thucydides did a good job in my opinion on avoiding his own opinion and just stating what he heard from each party during that time. During Creon’s speech, he continually points out that Athens cannot be made to look weak or “soft”. He claims that a democracy is not capable of ruling an empire and that the harshest of punishments is required for the Mytileneans. Creon is obviously a very powerful leader in Athens with a strong viewpoint on violence and war. As he speaks at the meeting of high up officials in Athens, he makes the proposal of literally killing all the people of Mytilene for their rebellion against the imperial power of Athens. Thucydides never tells us that this is right or wrong but just recounts the story as he remembers it which I think is very important. He then goes on to the speech of Diodotus. In this account, Diodotus is much more reasonable towards the Mytileneans. He has the opinion that instead of killing every person from the small island city, the Athenians should just kill the so-called “ringleaders” of the rebellion. This seems very humane when compared to Creon. However, Diodotus claimed that there were around 1000 leaders of the rebellion that deserved to be killed. This is a very high number and he only seems humane when his idea is set next to Creon’s. I think that because Diodotus’ viewpoint is weaker than Creon’s he is looked at in a much more positive tone as we discussed today in class. However, 1000 people is an outrageous number of people to put the blame on and kill for a rebellion. Idea to kill these leaders, in my opinion, is not any better than that of Creon’s. They are struggling to remove themselves from the situation and look on from different perspectives. The people from Mytilene are rebelling in hopes to be free from the Athenians. They are not hoping to achieve any wealth or power from the rebellion, but instead just freedom. It is obviously very difficult for the Athenians to see this from the side of power, but I do not blame the Mytileneans and don’t believe any of them deserve to be killed. This is a whole lot easier for me to judge and say what I believe the correct decision is from a different time period and place. However, you can see clear parallel situations that go on in today’s society. Our very own United States invaded the Middle East because of tyrant rulers to place democracy over there. This is what our leaders tell us. Many believe that in reality, we are there for the oil. It’s a prime example of a people of power misusing it on a people of less wealth and power. I think it’s a common theme in what I’ve read thus far in Thucydides even if it’s hidden behind harsher examples.
I agree, it was entertaining to include those specific excerpt. When you say Diodotus was being reasonable, I do not know if you mean it in a way that he was being fair but I see it in a different light. I feel that he wanted to do what was best for Athens. In his speech he even says things like “put to best use”, and “looking for our future well-being”. He wanted to keep them as allies which would result in more allies, I would call it being strategic. Also it was as if Thucydides was trying to show that democracy needed a stronger leadership but in cases too much of leadership can cause democracy to be overwhelming. In Cleon speech he took the tyranny stand in which leadership is too strong and it is used to intimidate and instill fear. Also reading more into the excerpts each side had their own reason to strike. The mytilineans did not want to serve the Athenians but yet I feel like they were handed a good offer by a nation that had more power than they did but they declined.
As others have mentioned, an impression I got from Cleon was that of emotional zeal in favor of death for the Mytileneans. It could be however, Diodotus by constrast, critique Cleon’s stance was carefully reasoned and well substantiated with counterexamples, I digress.
I like the moderation with which Diodotus argues that capital punishment is not amongst the appropriate options. I gather up a sense of confidence in his voice from the speech he gives while convening with others members in the assembly. It is deserved, because he makes several valid reasons to not demolish the Mytileneans. The reasons that stood out to myself include the loss of Mytilene as an economic hub and a drawn out siege of the island that would be a bloody affair for both sides. At least on these levels, Diodotus has a pretty sound argument. His declaration that the best action involves what is healthiest for Athen’s future shows a realpolitik perspective that I feel is still (unfortunately) overlooked by people in authority today.
Regarding the Melians, the historical autonomy these islanders enjoyed for centuries sits in contrast to the Mystileneans, who served under Athenian dominion. In that way, instead of a rebellion, the ambassadors of Melos insisted it was a conflict to maintain their own freedom. I wonder how Cleon’s perspective might have changed, whereby he may not have seen the people of Melos as rebellious, rather, the unfortunate subjects to Athenian imperialism and military might. The Melians aren’t in the wrong like the Mystileneans. They weren’t actively disobedient towards Athens, or even aggressive towards them. I think that it makes it harder to justify any execution for the Melians. This is partly because, besides the Athenian’s desired goal of making enemies fear their military strength, they run the risk of being seen as tyrants and oppressors.
The Mytilenean Debate was an interesting read. It offered two perspectives on how to act in the same situation. Allies of the Athenian Empire, who were considered special and received special privileges, rebelled against Athens in the summer of 428. They felt that their alliance with the Athenians was held only by fear, and before the Athenians could take away their rights, they thought to strike first. This caused most of the rest of the island to join in this rebellion except for Methymna. The first to offer their opinion on the matter was Cleon, a powerful leader in Athens, and Diodotus, the son of Eucrates.
ReplyDeleteWhen the Athenians heard of this rebellion, they immediately decreed that all men of military age should be put to death, but a day later had second thoughts about this extreme action and held this debate to help reconsider what could be done. In Creon’s perspective, he felt that what the Mytileneans did was unacceptable and punishable by death of all men, saying “They should be punished right now, therefore, as they deserve for their injustice. And do not put all the blame on the oligarchs and absolve the common people, for they alike took up arms against you” (pg. 69). He saw using power, force, and instilling fear in others as the only option to prevent any further rebellion. He was almost offended that the Athenians wanted to reconsider and look at other options instead of killing all of them off. His main point of argument was that anything less than a punishment of death would make them appear as weak, and in turn, more rebellions would occur. He felt people would be walking all over them because they knew there would be no consequences to their actions. He states, “If you inflict the same punishment on those who rebel under compulsion by the enemy, as on those who rebel of their own accord, don’t you think anyone would seize the slightest pretext to rebel, when if they succeed they will win their liberty, but if they fail they will suffer nothing that can’t be mended?” (pg. 69).
On the other hand, Diodotus argues for a more fair approach to this situation. He less concerned with the injustice done to them by the Mytileneans, and instead, more concerned with what will benefit their society the most. He states, “Even if I proved them guilty of terrible injustice, I still would not advise the death penalty for this, unless it were to our advantage. Even if they deserved to be pardoned, I would not have you pardon them if it did not turn out to be good for the city” (pg. 72). We see here that Diodotus is not against any type of punishment, he is just more interested in making sure that the punishment is to their benefit. Diodotus furthers his point by saying, “Those who plan well against their enemies… are more formidable than those who attack with active force and foolishness combined” (pg. 75). He wants to make use of the people and their resources, explaining that moderate penalties and substantial payments from them would be more beneficial than killing them off. He is adamant about keeping a close eye to ensure a rebellion never crosses their minds and if their is a reason to punish, punish as few people as possible who are at fault.
Both perspectives on the situation at hand are arguable, but I believe that Diodotus’s way of handling it is much more intelligent, beneficial, and even slightly cunning compared to Creon’s way. Creon displayed the characteristics of someone who is heated, angry, and willing to take extreme measures to avenge himself and the Athenians. On the other hand, Diodotus displays the characteristics of someone who carefully thinks and processes. He is able to look at several perspectives on the situation and use logical forethought to evaluate the effectiveness of a plan in the long run for the society.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI find it interesting how you determined that Thucycides thought the Athenians were special or privileged. I agree with the fact that Diodotus is less concerned with the injustice done to him and his people but rather what will benefit his people more. I believe that the most important point or the point i agree with the most is that if people are rebelling than that government is clearly not fit to rule those people. Rebellion should never even cross people's minds if they are properly and fairly ruled. I agree that it is evident that Creon's way is based heavily on emotion rather than logic and reason. In my own personal experiences I definitely can say that acting on emotion and not thinking things through is not always beneficial or one's best bet to dealing with a situation.
DeleteI also find that perspective interesting as well, that the Athenians had privilege, or were special. What I felt were the overarching themes in both the Mytilenean debate and the negotiation with the Delians and Athenians were hegemony and xenophobia. Where I felt the xenophobia was existent was in the way Athenians dealt with outsiders, the Delians in particular. At one point, the Athenians tell the Delians that they are the most worried about than those on the mainland near Athens. In the Mytilenean debate, where hegemony comes in is when Cleon debates on murdering all of the military aged men who invaded Athens. This is also prevalent when the Athenians try to persuade the Delians into surrendering and giving up their island to Athenian control. In all of those dealings, Athenians fear those who are non-Athenian, so they will do anything to make sure nobody penetrates Athenian borders, even if it means mass murder.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI've read Julius Caesar's Commentaries, and I'm struck by the similarities in literary style between Caesar and Thucydides. In general I find the parallels between Greco-Roman and modern English fascinating, the general sentence structure and inherent tone of works from many other cultures I find more exotic.
DeleteLike Caesar, Thucydides employs a very detailed account; noting each relevant landmass, the exact number of ships, including the strategic significance of the manner in which they sailed.
Salaethus goes with 40 ships from Lacedaemon to Mitylene by way of Pyrrha, over land, over torrent, to a circumvalation, which he manages across to reach his destination.
Another similarity I find to Caesar is the manner with which he presents himself to the magistrates of Mitylene. The Roman and Greek style of prose, along with all other facets of stylistic representation was relaxed, simple, and fluid. Salaethus "superintends matters generally" telling the host population that "Attica would certainly be invaded", and the nonchalance with which he perceived the situation, and the malleability to which he ascribed it, is why it didn't take him long at all to win over that people.
Isn’t it amazing how after all these years power is still such a coveted thing? Although, in older days empires were all ruled by kings because democracies were thought not to work, the concept of always wanting more and having the most power is not such an ancient concept. But, as recognized in the first passage by Diodotus, the people were in charge more than the royalty wanted to admit, the kingdom knew that they could not specifically attack the public, because they would attack back and win. And they could not risk execution of all citizens for fear of other citizen rebellion. In the Thucycides excerpts the fact that a nation had power was a very important part of life because they did not want to be considered “weak,” but really nothing has changed, nations still go to war these days just to prove that they can. But, these wars were not always a whim, kings and their advisors had to think about their next move very carefully, as in a game of chess, so as not to be checkmated. That’s all it really was, an enormous game of chess, with the smartest taking advantage of those who could not compete with their wits. Plans must be carefully thought out in order to get the outcome that is wanted and expected, this directly relates to Medea as well.
ReplyDeleteIn Medea the first thing that we learn about Jason is that he was on a mission to get the Golden Fleece, so, indicating that he wants more, anything that he does not currently have. After this we see that Jason’s excuse to marrying Creon’s daughter, whether it is actually true or not, was that he did not want his family to be poor and wanted them to prosper. Thus, he is seeking that security, that power that man so often wants and will do anything to have. But, also in this play there is Medea’s want of power, not as a queen or anything of that realm, but power over her husband who betrayed her. She must use all of her cunning and wit to find the best way to make Jason pay, and have her power over him, which as we know came true because she devised her plan well.
So, a main theme of Greek writing is the want of power and the conniving that was done to achieve this richness of power. With this in mind, I can see why we are analyzing and discussing these works, for how different is society today. Yes, they do have different ways of expressing their reasons for war and ways in which they execute their actions, but that greed that man has is present to this day, and will most likely never go away. Thus, making it appropriate to look to these works and explore the differences as well as similarities of the different ages.
You definitely make a great point. Power is definitely a huge part of government not only in early Greece but in today’s world, no matter what country we are in. You mentioned how power is not only seen in Thucydides book but also in Medea and how she wants power over her husband due to his betrayal. In the beginning of the Medea, the Nurse speaks of how Medea was very convincing and in a way made Jason marries her. In a way the discussions in Thucydides can also be seen as a way to convince the other party to agree with you. Thucydides showed two different sides regarding the Peloponnesian war and how the people living in the cities should be treated. Both sides gave their opinions in trying to make a better reason why each action should be taken. Of course, in the end this came back to the idea of power because at the end of the day everyone is looking out for their self-interests.
DeleteIn the Mytilenean debate and the Melian dialogue, I noticed a similar theme of rational in decision making. The reasoning and great points brought up by Diodotus, saved the destruction of an entire city in the Mytilenean debate. Though the second ship couldn't reach Mytilene before the first ship, in order to save those sent by Paches to be killed, as Creon decreed, it did in fact save the city of a greater destruction.
ReplyDeleteMore than anything, Diodotus’ response to Creon stood out to me, particularly in addressing the claims that he was but a mere corrupt, eloquent speaker bought by bribery. To this, Diodotus did not spend much time denying and being defensive, rather, he argued that even if he was bought by bribery, should a bad deed on his behalf be justification for the city to act in an irrational way by not hearing him out? For even a man bought by bribery may have the right answers. His underlying tone was one of rational in what was best for the city as a whole, which included not resorting to quick angry decisions to murder an entire population.
Also as intriguing was the Melian dialogue and the Athenians argument, based solely on rational. The Athenians in the Melian dialogue and Diodotus both dismissed the reliance of hope as irrational. Although in both the debate and the dialogue, the voice of reason as opposed to honor and anger was the ultimate victor, each case could’ve avoided more harm than it did if the original decision was made sensibly in what was best for the societies. For example, if the Melians had not acted to defend their honor initially by engaging in war with the Athenians, many lives could’ve been saved.
Although it has been engrained into us that Ancient Greece founded democracy and the western world modeled their governments after it, after reading these historical passages and contrasting it to our age of irrational international policies, one can only doubt how much we actually modeled after “the first democracy”.
I also found myself focusing on wondering why the Melians so rashly decided that it would be better to wage a way they knew they were going to lose, rather than deciding to surrender peacefully and have many more of their citizens/soldiers remain alive. I thought it unfair that probably only a few Melian government officials were making this decision. Had the question been put to a vote I'm sure the soldiers and townspeople would have gladly agreed to surrender. The majority of the country would've probably been more concerned with the lives of its people rather than its image. This can relate back to the point that Diodotus made, that any big decision like this must be discussed among a group of representatives before any emotional or rash actions are made; this is the only way to make a logical decision that will benefit most in the future.
DeleteIn both the Mytilenean debate and the Melian dialogue, the Athenians seem to have a sole desire for power. Cleon especially worries about seeming weak to others and believes in overtaking other people for the sake of having more power. His point of view is interesting in that he wishes to be feared by others. He believes that if he does not defeat the Mytileneans, others will revolt against him. The quote that particularly stood out to me was when Cleon said, "...your softness puts you in danger and does not win you the affection of your allies," (pg. 67). This tells a reader that Cleon does not believe that he should be loved by his followers nor should he be compassionate towards them, bringing me back to the point of Cleon wanting to be feared.
ReplyDeleteWhat is interesting about this passage is that Diototus is still able to portray contrasting views of the situation. He declares, "Even if I proved them guilty of terrible injustice, I still would not advise the death penalty for this, unless that was to our advantage," (pg. 72). This is important because he does not fear what Cleon will do because of this challenge. Diototus realizes that killing the Mytileneans could possibly harm their own people if others decide to revolt on Athens because of the unfair and extreme actions. Diototus presented intelligent points of why we should at least save the people who have done no harm to their city and who are their allies, for if they killed part of a particular group, such as the democrats, then the rest would turn against them.
It is interesting to see how today, many people still search for power and use the process of making others fear them for it. Although this is true, I believe that Diototus' way of thinking is a more strategic and better plan for his people. One must think about all the effects, good and bad, of the actions they are about to take. While Cleon was hot-headed, stubborn, and arrogant thinking that everything would go his way by killing the Mytileneans, Diototus was smart enough to think about even the people that would not take place in the battle. He thought about his city and how others would react to the overtaking of Mytileneans. All in all, while an impulsive idea may seem like the best action at the time, one must get past the pride he obtains to see the possible consequences of the action that is about to be made.
I would agree with your argument that Diodotus way of think is more practical and rational than Cleon. I want to point out your idea that the Athenians desire of power. I like how that you touch on the idea of how Cleon doesn’t want them to seem weak, so he would like to put them to death. But I would like to point out how Diodotus says that the reasoning behind his argument is that if they kill everyone, a revolt would start. This revolt could overtake Athens and then they would also would be weak. It wasn’t that Diodotus was only pointing out that Cleon was acting in anger but also that he too wanted to make sure that Athens will never be over powered. So even though right reasoning, Athenians are still trying to make Athens look as the elite power by only killing the guilty and dividing Lesbos. Which still instills the fear that Cleon is trying to put on non-Athenians by killing everyone.
DeleteOne thing I found really interesting about Thucydides was the lack of moral debate in the speeches. In the first debate we were assigned to read, though the two speakers were debating whether or not to kill all the men on an entire island, neither of them was debating the morality of capital punishment or slavery, or pleading for mercy on the people of the island. Instead, they were debating what was best for themselves. I think it’s interesting how, even though this is obviously not the best way to go about relations with other countries or territories, it has happened throughout history, and is still happening today.
ReplyDeleteOur country sees itself as a bastion of all that is right with the world: democracy, freedom, and civil rights. Anyone who doesn’t agree with us is denounced with words we have decided are insults, like “socialist.” We also, for some unknown reason, feel that it is our duty to force our ideals on others, as well as interfere in affairs that many would argue are not ours to interfere in. We start wars and conflicts under the guise of morality: “This dictator is oppressing his people!” But what we are usually doing is serving our own interests. Take the conflicts in the Middle East for an example. Many would argue that we are only so invested in them because we stand to lose something—oil—if there is any more conflict there. Someone in my group today brought up a good point about this: there are awful human rights abuses happening every day in Africa, but we haven’t intervened nearly as much there as we have in the Middle East. Why? Most likely because we don’t have a self-serving interest in them like we do in the Middle East.
I am not trying to demonize the US, but I am trying to bring an important point up: Thucydides wrote this history and millions of people have read it, and yet we repeat it over and over, disregarding its lesson: that conflicts that serve the selfish, violent interests of one side are both unproductive and immoral.
I agree with you when you talk about how it's still the same "selfish,violent, self interest" that is similar from back then and now. Nothing has ever really changed with humans in terms of those with "power" and trying to keep "order" for themselves- rather than trying to better the world with morality/humanity. We, as a society only focus on things that will be beneficial to us (like you talk about Middle East vs Africa) and only work towards something and help if it'll do good for us (less likely than not, doesn't work out too well).
DeleteAs much people call it "Democracy" i honestly believe that is probably the wrong word to describe such governing whether its the past or present. So much time as passed, yet the similarities of the powerful is really striking, and just so easy to understand.
Thucydides gives us an interesting parallel between how wars were fought years ago and how they reflect on our choices to go to war today. In our reading for this week, the Mytilenean debate focuses on how to best conquer Mytilene. The Speech of Cleon spoke in favor of the idea to kill all of the military-aged men and take the women and children as slaves. Cleon also believes that this matter should not be further discussed; that waiting a longer period of time before acting will be detrimental to the Athenians. He is quoted as saying, “After a delay, you see, the victim comes at the wrongdoer with his anger dulled; but the punishment he gives right after an injury is the biggest and most appropriate.” (page 68). Cleon believes that Athens should act fast, before they gain a reputation of looking weak or soft in the face of adversary. Diodotus, on the other hand, says that the matter should be further discussed and that rash decisions will lead to poor outcomes. He is quoted as saying, “...nothing is more contrary to good judgment than these two- haste and anger.” (page 71). Diodotus believes that killing all the men will simply lead to chaos and rioting, and will be detrimental to their overall plan. Ultimately, Athens kills only those who are the most responsible, and prevents things from getting out of hand, as Diodotus had feared. In America, there are opposing sides to any debate, and often different views on if or when we should go to war, with whom, and how to fight the war. These ideas are all heavily contested and controversial in our society, and have been for decades. Different people in high-standing positions have opinions and ideas as to how to best go about ensuring the United States' interests in the rest of the world. Oftentimes, politicians and people in authoritative positions bring forth different ideals that are held by many Americans in order to make a convincing argument that others will agree with and support. Much of the policy that is pushed forward comes from different viewpoints, yet stems from the same notion of America being this greater power. Even if we don't agree, we have many of the same interests at heart. Even though Cleon and Diodotus were arguing for two different approaches to fighting this war, both brought forth ideals held strongly by Athenians and were determined to promote these ideals in the best interest of Athens.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteThucydides was a very interesting read for me. Being an international relations major a lot of what is debated and discussed in the readings directly correlates with theories still used today. The realist theory is shown strongly in the speech of Cleon. Realists believe that states are: anarchic, rational, self-interested, and seek survival through gaining resources. It is clear here that Cleon sees the system as everyman for himself and that if the Mytileneans are not destroyed this problem of rebellion will keep occurring. He sees the chance to use the power Athens has to take over and absorb a new territory thus increasing Athens power. In doing this he is supporting the realist theory by gaining more resources and more land to secure superiority for Athens. As we discussed in class the idea of just or unjust does not come into play when talking about the realist theory. States are simply trying to increase power to ensure security.
Just like any theory they’re flaws and ways to discredit its effectiveness. That is what we see in the second speech, the speech of Diodotus. Diodotus is trying to seek an alternative punishment for the people of Mytileneans. He believes that destroying the Mytileneans state will only cause further confrontation between other allies who might feel threatened by the power of Athens. As I read this debate I made the connection to the security dilemma, which is a flaw in the realist theory. The security dilemma explains that increasing military power to heighten security will eventually lead to increased tensions in the system. This is exactly the point Diodotus is making in his response to the Cleon speech. He is pointing out a flaw in the realist theory, destroying Mytileneans will cause an unstable relationship in the system and eventually other states threatened by Athens will feel the need to rebel in order to protect their own lands.
Thucydides historical accounts really opened up to me how far back these international theories go. As long as there are separate nations an international system will be in place and each state must be wary of their survival. Nations are always trying to increase well-being and security for their people but that does come with a price.
I like how you compared the readings to theories that are still being used today. I am also taking an International Relations class this semester and it is evident how these theories that were written many years ago, still applies today. I also like how you compared the security dilemma as a flaw in the realist theory. It helps to better understand how the theories are being applied to present day situations.
DeleteI enjoyed reading the Mytilenean Debate. Cleon and Diodotus both had intriguing speeches and both offered consistent views on the issue of the Mytilenean rebellion. I especially liked Diodotus’ speech because he did not simply deny everything Creon spoke about, he offered different approach to the issue. He said, “Even if I proved them guilty of terrible injustice, I still would not advise the death penalty for this, unless that was to our advantage” (line 47). Killing the men and enslaving the women and children will not solve the problem according to Diodotus, and this argument lead the citizens of the Athenian Empire to make the decision of not killing them. I believe Diodotus’ ideas were more rational and I would have to agree with him, in that killing and enslaving the Mytilenean people is not the way to go. There should be another method of punishment that is less harsh, but still gets the point across as both Diodotus and Cleaon wish.
ReplyDeleteCleon’s speech was harsher in that he did not seem to accept any other option in terms of punishment for these people. “Give these people the punishment they deserve, and set up a clear example for our other allies, to show that the penalty for rebellion is death” (line 39). Cleon was more direct in his approach; he told them what they deserved, why they deserved it, and that was that. Personally, I felt the anger that Cleon probably felt while I read this. If I was an audience member at the time of his speech, I would be terrified to ever cross paths with Cleon. It seems that all he wants is the Athenian Empire to hold the ultimate power over those people.
Power is a common theme among Greek literature; everyone seems to want it. In the Mytilenean debate, the Athenians want to enforce their power over the Mytileneans by punishing them for rebelling. The Athenians also exert their power over the island of Melos in the Melian dialogue. Athens sent ambassadors to negotiate a deal with the Melians in order to end the war going on between them. The Melians refuse to be under complete rule of Athens, and as a result, generals were sent to surround the Melian city and immediately start war. The Athenians believe they are superior to all other Greek city-states, therefore think they should control them all. I would be interested to see what other Greek works of literature are out there to see if, again, power is a major theme.
I agree that power is a major theme throughout the events. Throughout Diodotus’s speech he touched upon how destroying the island of Melos would be getting rid of a source of income for the Athenian empire. I think that this idea of striving to attain personal gain at the expense of others translates into American politics. Although politicians say that the interests of other nations are important, really the main focus of their decisions is how America can benefit the most. I agree with you that it seems that all Creon wants is the Athenian Empire to hold the ultimate power over those people and will do whatever it takes to maintain that power. I could also feel the anger that Creon was feeling throughout his speech. Overall I do agree on the points you hit about how Greek works of literature are centered around the pursuit of power, and I too am interested in reading other Greek literature to see if this theme is consistent.
DeleteReading Thucydides was interesting. I thought it was interesting how those two speeches by Cleon and Diodotus were pretty much saying the total opposite of each other. One wants them to be killed and one wants them to live and be used to their advantage.
ReplyDeleteCleon was saying that they need to kill those people because ‘your softness puts you in danger and does not win the affection of your allies.’ Also he says how the only reason they are obeying is because you exceed them in strength. If you don’t show your strength then they will not be scared and will rebel. He says that ‘it is easier to keep misfortune away than to preserve great happiness’. He wants to give them this penalty that they deserve now so that an example will be set for their allies and show that the penalty for rebellion is death.
Diodotus says something completely different. He talks about how the people should not be killed. He is not saying that he is protecting him or showing them any mercy. He believes that it should be discussed. He speaks about how anyone who believes that discussion is not instructive for action is either stupid or is defending some sort of self-interest. He talks about the profit that the city is receiving from these people and that it wouldn’t make sense to kill these people and give up that profit. He says that the only reason to kill them is if it were an advantage to the city, therefor they should find a good use for the Mytileneans. He also discusses how the people of Lesbos were to pay two silver minas for their lot annually and they had to work the land themselves.
I agree with you that is was interesting that the two view points were almost polar opposites of each other. Which one did you agree with, or relate to more? I personally agree with Diodotus. Destroying the land does send a message, yes. But using the land to better your own people is a lot better in my opinion. They should be trying to do what is best for the good of the people. Cleons viewpoint is something that the U.S has done in the past, for example the Vietnam War and the war in Iraq. Our brute force was not enough in Vietnam, and we lost many lives. This is seen as a big mistake in U.S history. That's why I agree with Diodotus.
DeleteSomething I found incredibly interesting while reading the Thucydides pieces was that he did, in fact, touch on both sides of each argument discussed and he didn’t lean towards one side or the other’s argument. It was easy to tell that his goal was to let the reader decide for themselves the motives of each side and whether or not their arguments were plausible. I liked that, even though the arguments were ridiculous and each side had their own craziness, they are relevant and I liked being able to decide things for myself rather than have the author pull me in the direction they intend. That is not something you see often, in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed reading these sections of Thucydides because it makes everything seem so matter of fact rather than seeing the romantic side of things. There is no emotional side to anything and everything is stated as is. I like that. A lot.
Something else I found interesting, and somewhat disturbing, was the extent to which they debated for things of self-interest. Nothing they discussed had anything to do with the betterment for society but instead, for themselves. I wonder if this sort of argumentation is what started the idea that we should do things for ourselves and for our own betterment rather than for the good of the whole. This idea is clearly still prevalent in society today. Like we discussed in class, the U.S. went to Iraq to punish them for something they did not do but it made us look good so we did it anyway. I wonder if the self-interest discussed in the readings had any influence on the self-influence we see today, in any way.
I like how you brought up that this reading didn't pull you towards one direction that the author intended. I also found this to be true and I liked that as well. As we discussed in class we are use to reading things that pretty much tell us how we should feel about certain issues. I liked how Thucydides did his best to get both viewpoints as non-biased as possible. One thing that I didn't like was that the opinions of Cleon and Diodotus were the only opinions we saw. We did not see anything from the viewpoint of the Mytileneans when it's their fate that is being decided. Cleon and Diodotus were only focused on what would benefit them the most, they had no regard for the people of Mytilene. This, unfortunately, is still an issue in today's world. As you brought up, the U.S went into Iraq to punish them for something they didn't even do. We thought that by doing so, it would make us look stronger but how did it really make us look? We rushed into something before gathering all the facts and we did it for what? Revenge? It is sad to think that after all these years of evolving we are still not far off from the Greek civilizations and their selfish ways of ruling.
DeleteThe debate between Cleon and Diodotus as portrayed by Thucydides is interesting because of the presentation of both arguments. Both speakers ignore the effects of their decisions on the livelihood of the Mytileneans, and focus on what they believe is best for the Athenians.
ReplyDeleteCleon’s argument uses language that suggests he is angry with the decision to reconsider his plan. He calls upon the desire to be strong and masculine in men, explaining that “…your softness puts you in danger and does not win you the affection of your allies.” Athenians were accustomed to being associated with strength, and being called soft would have been an effective motivator. Though one might be inclined to disagree with Cleon because of the atrocities he is asking be committed, Cleon makes an excellent point about the nature of law. He states “…a city with inferior laws is better if they are never relaxed than a city with good laws that have no force.” This makes a lot of sense, because laws that exist but are not followed or enforced are useless. I think however that a law without a consistently applied punishment is also mostly useless. Cleon is asking for the destruction of the Mytileneans and makes a strong argument for doing so, but would he act the same in every situation where this type of law is broken? The next point that interested me in his speech was when he said”…for generally it is human nature to look with contempt on those who serve your interests, and to admire those who never give in to you.” This is a powerful insight on the nature of human beings, and one which I believe to be true. We as humans admire perseverance, associating it with strength, endurance, and a strong will. Submission is seen as weakness, associated with passivity and “giving up.” This point circles back to his original appeal to the Athenian citizens’ perception of Athens as strong and powerful.
Diodotus calls upon a different aspect of human nature, describing the effects of decisions made in haste and in anger. He says, “Of these, one is usually thoughtless, while the other is ill-informed and narrow-minded.” He believes deciding so quickly to massacre the Mytileneans would be to Athens’ detriment, for even the death penalty is not enough to stop people from committing crimes. He also explains that the source of Athens’ strength is its revenue received from its allies. If Athens were to enact a policy of destroying any ally who rose up against them, soon there would be no revenue, for a destroyed city is unable to generate it. He proposes that they punish as few as possible and watch the rest very closely to prevent future rebellion. Diodotus believes Cleon’s view is blind to its consequences for the future of Athens. I think Diodotus was right, and that the massacre of the Mytileneans would have sent the wrong message to other allies of Athens.
Thucydides’ descriptions of the Mytilenean Debate and the Melia Dialogue demonstrate the might as well as shrewd reasoning of Athens. However, while the Athenian Empire demonstrates itself to be skilled in debate and reason, it displays inconsistency in the handling of these two situations which highlights the differences that result when decisions are made by citizens rather than military leaders.
ReplyDeleteThe Mytileneans were already under the control of Athens, and were in fact one of their more favored colonies when they decided to revolt against them. When their rebellion failed, their fate was discussed in an Athenian assembly. While Cleon, a skilled and influential speaker, advocated a harsh punishment of the traitorous colony, killing all their men of military age and enslaving all other Mytileneans; Diodotus was able to convince the Assembly otherwise. He claimed killing all the Mytilenean men would not help Athens interests in future rebellions or interactions with their allies, as all citizens would choose to join a revolt since they’d be put to death regardless if they had or not. As a result, it was voted that only those directly responsible for planning the rebellion would be put to death and stricter regulations would be imposed on the island.
The Melians, however, were treated much more harshly, and perhaps with less reason to. As an island that had been independent for 700 years and done nothing to anger the Athenians in the past, it is natural they would fight to preserve their freedom in the face of Athens decision to attack them simply to display their power. In the case of the Melians, there was no assembly to discuss the fate of the island, and when Melia refused to surrender, the Athens generals eventually decided to kill all of their men and enslave the rest.
These two situations display the differing outcomes that can occur when a nation bases its decisions on power alone, rather than what the most beneficial action would be, and when decision making is placed in the power of military leaders, rather than allowing citizens to play a role.
I like that you brought up how the Melians were treated more unfairly. The fact that the Melians had done nothing to deserve the Athenians decision to come to their island and force them to surrender or fight for their freedom. It perfectly depicts outcome of decisions being independently made by a military leaders. Since a military’s job is to fight, asking them to make decisions for the wellbeing of a country seems contradictory and unfair. They would be conflicting interests if on one hand they thought they should spare the people of the country and on the other hand were under pressure to show their superiority by overtaking the country.
DeleteI found reading the chosen excerpts from Thucydides to be very interesting. I especially enjoyed reading the two sides of the Mytilenean debate. It was definitely a fun new twist to read about the same event in the past and hear different perspectives on it. Thucydides did a good job in my opinion on avoiding his own opinion and just stating what he heard from each party during that time.
ReplyDeleteDuring Creon’s speech, he continually points out that Athens cannot be made to look weak or “soft”. He claims that a democracy is not capable of ruling an empire and that the harshest of punishments is required for the Mytileneans. Creon is obviously a very powerful leader in Athens with a strong viewpoint on violence and war. As he speaks at the meeting of high up officials in Athens, he makes the proposal of literally killing all the people of Mytilene for their rebellion against the imperial power of Athens. Thucydides never tells us that this is right or wrong but just recounts the story as he remembers it which I think is very important.
He then goes on to the speech of Diodotus. In this account, Diodotus is much more reasonable towards the Mytileneans. He has the opinion that instead of killing every person from the small island city, the Athenians should just kill the so-called “ringleaders” of the rebellion. This seems very humane when compared to Creon. However, Diodotus claimed that there were around 1000 leaders of the rebellion that deserved to be killed. This is a very high number and he only seems humane when his idea is set next to Creon’s.
I think that because Diodotus’ viewpoint is weaker than Creon’s he is looked at in a much more positive tone as we discussed today in class. However, 1000 people is an outrageous number of people to put the blame on and kill for a rebellion. Idea to kill these leaders, in my opinion, is not any better than that of Creon’s. They are struggling to remove themselves from the situation and look on from different perspectives. The people from Mytilene are rebelling in hopes to be free from the Athenians. They are not hoping to achieve any wealth or power from the rebellion, but instead just freedom.
It is obviously very difficult for the Athenians to see this from the side of power, but I do not blame the Mytileneans and don’t believe any of them deserve to be killed. This is a whole lot easier for me to judge and say what I believe the correct decision is from a different time period and place. However, you can see clear parallel situations that go on in today’s society. Our very own United States invaded the Middle East because of tyrant rulers to place democracy over there. This is what our leaders tell us. Many believe that in reality, we are there for the oil. It’s a prime example of a people of power misusing it on a people of less wealth and power. I think it’s a common theme in what I’ve read thus far in Thucydides even if it’s hidden behind harsher examples.
I agree, it was entertaining to include those specific excerpt. When you say Diodotus was being reasonable, I do not know if you mean it in a way that he was being fair but I see it in a different light. I feel that he wanted to do what was best for Athens. In his speech he even says things like “put to best use”, and “looking for our future well-being”. He wanted to keep them as allies which would result in more allies, I would call it being strategic. Also it was as if Thucydides was trying to show that democracy needed a stronger leadership but in cases too much of leadership can cause democracy to be overwhelming. In Cleon speech he took the tyranny stand in which leadership is too strong and it is used to intimidate and instill fear. Also reading more into the excerpts each side had their own reason to strike. The mytilineans did not want to serve the Athenians but yet I feel like they were handed a good offer by a nation that had more power than they did but they declined.
DeleteAs others have mentioned, an impression I got from Cleon was that of emotional zeal in favor of death for the Mytileneans. It could be however, Diodotus by constrast, critique Cleon’s stance was carefully reasoned and well substantiated with counterexamples, I digress.
ReplyDeleteI like the moderation with which Diodotus argues that capital punishment is not amongst the appropriate options. I gather up a sense of confidence in his voice from the speech he gives while convening with others members in the assembly. It is deserved, because he makes several valid reasons to not demolish the Mytileneans. The reasons that stood out to myself include the loss of Mytilene as an economic hub and a drawn out siege of the island that would be a bloody affair for both sides. At least on these levels, Diodotus has a pretty sound argument. His declaration that the best action involves what is healthiest for Athen’s future shows a realpolitik perspective that I feel is still (unfortunately) overlooked by people in authority today.
Regarding the Melians, the historical autonomy these islanders enjoyed for centuries sits in contrast to the Mystileneans, who served under Athenian dominion. In that way, instead of a rebellion, the ambassadors of Melos insisted it was a conflict to maintain their own freedom. I wonder how Cleon’s perspective might have changed, whereby he may not have seen the people of Melos as rebellious, rather, the unfortunate subjects to Athenian imperialism and military might.
The Melians aren’t in the wrong like the Mystileneans. They weren’t actively disobedient towards Athens, or even aggressive towards them. I think that it makes it harder to justify any execution for the Melians. This is partly because, besides the Athenian’s desired goal of making enemies fear their military strength, they run the risk of being seen as tyrants and oppressors.